The Wong Kim Ark decision used that 'poorly translated sentence' almost verbatim in defining Natural Born Citizen. The rest of the decision did not do what you think it did (nor what the Hoosier Hillbilly court mistakenly claimed).
“The Wong Kim Ark decision used that ‘poorly translated sentence’ almost verbatim in defining Natural Born Citizen.”
Oh really? Care to QUOTE it?
Would that be here:
“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Or here:
“Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,”
Or here:
“It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called “natural-born subjects.” As that statute included persons born “within any of the King’s realms or dominions,” it, of course, extended to the Colonies...”
Just what quote are you referring to?
And you DO realize that Vattel wasn’t translated using NBC until AFTER the Constitution was written?
The Wong Kim Ark case clearly stated that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born, and naturally when that child is a citizen she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.
That is the overwhelming consensus of constitutional scholars and legal experts, and that is why Obama was confirmed unanimously by the Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.
Obama falls under the first of the following two categories for Natural Born Citizen, the original category and the one that is unquestioned:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
There have been numerous federal cases that find that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens. For example:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.